Hillary reassesses the Bush Legacy

As I have often said, one of the things I decry about American politics these days is the simple inability for politicians of either party to ever admit that an opponent has a good idea.

Several years ago, when Bush put the idea of Social Security reform into the public debate, only to go down to an humiliating defeat, I said to my friends that he would be remembered by historians as the President that finally made this critical issue part of the public debate.

The Democrats ridiculed him and used this issue to help them win the midterm elections.

So, last week Hillary Clinton proposed individual 401K plans for every American, kicking it off with a $1000 donation from the government.

Strange, but I don't hear the democrats screaming about her sacrificing the futures of the American people.

It is a simple recognition that a program whose purpose was to help a depression torn country, has passed it's time.

There are several issues such as these that I think will ultimately be viewed quite differently by historians.

Another one, is the idea of unilateralism. That America should act to protect itself pro actively rather than defensively.

That this was ever debated is one of the reasons that I think the modern Democratic party is so lost on foreign policy.

Every nation in the world acts this way. That a President actually had to enumerate this as a policy that changed America's course was pathetic enough, and indicative of our foreign policy gone wrong. This was simply returning to the basic idea of the entire purpose of a nation state - to protect it's citizens.

More importantly, both of these ideas are simply examples of why, even when you find yourself on the other side of the proverbial aisle, it is so foolish to universally reject the opposing parties policies.